Business of the House

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has expressed his views with great force, but I am sorry to say that he is in violation of the convention relating to the business statement in the way that the Leader of the House said was true of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) the other day, as a consequence of which no response to the question is required.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Can the Leader of the House confirm that the withdrawal agreement Bill that is about to be published will disapply the requirement under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act that any treaty must be laid before the House for 21 days before it can be ratified?

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I concur with the sound advice from the Clerk at the Table. The hon. Gentleman has made a good case which should be duly considered. If I heard him correctly, he said that he was not looking for me to make a definite ruling from the Chair now, and I am most grateful to him for that, because I am not minded to do so. However, I say to him again, in all seriousness and candour, that he has made a good case. I have heard his point, it has been amplified by many other colleagues, and I will reflect upon it and give what I hope will be a fully considered ruling on this matter on Monday. I will do so, of course, having taken advice in appropriate quarters. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House.

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your response to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and your statement that you will make a ruling on Monday, I am anxious that, if a section 13(1)(b) motion were to be tabled for the House to consider on Monday—which seems to me to be what we have just chosen to amend today—there should be an opportunity for an amendment, or amendments, to be tabled to it. Depending on whether the Government may table such a motion, could you indicate whether you would be willing to accept a manuscript amendment once we know what your ruling is on Monday?

[Mr Speaker]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. My instinctive and unfailing approach, to the best of my limited ability, is to try to facilitate the House. It flows from that that I do not want the House to be disadvantaged.

In the ordinary course of events, one would hope that there was adequate notice of a motion and therefore an opportunity for amendments to be submitted on an earlier day. If there is no reasonable opportunity in this case, but there is—and I say “but there is”; it remains to be seen whether there is—an orderly motion before the House, tabled at rather short notice, it must be right that there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments to be tabled, so that alternative propositions can be put before the House. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that that would be the case. It would be, I think, desirable in processing these matters for any such amendments to be down by midday on Monday. The Government’s motion has gone down today; a simple nod of the head would suffice.

Business without Debate

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh yes, of course. There is a vacancy. Far be it for me to accuse the hon. Gentleman of being a procedural pedant, because the Chair is in favour of procedural pedantry. He is not; but he was a distinguished, indeed illustrious, Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who regularly had confetti showered upon him by Members in all parts of the House.

If the matter comes to me, I will consider it. Let us leave it at that.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order, but it relates to the answer that the Leader of the House gave earlier in his business statement about the possibility of a Saturday sitting. He was asked, “When are we going to know?” and he said that it was contingent on what happened at the European Council on Thursday and Friday.

Am I right in thinking that, unless the House agrees to a business motion before we rise—presumably on Thursday—saying that there will be a Saturday sitting, the only way in which a Saturday sitting can then happen is as a result of a request to you, as Speaker for the House, to sit on that day? If that is the case, and if that request is not made until, say, late on Friday evening, how exactly are Members meant to know that the House has been recalled, unless they are notified by their Whips or read about it in the newspapers? You may not want to comment on this, Mr Speaker, but would it not be preferable if the House were to be informed in advance that there was to be a Saturday sitting, rather than the recall procedure being used—if my understanding is correct?

[Mr Speaker]

In broad terms I agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. There are two routes to this House meeting on Saturday. One is a motion before the House and approved by the House, which specifies that the House shall sit on Saturday, and it would be expected to indicate the period of the intended sitting. The alternative route would be the method of recall under the relevant Standing Order, whereby a Minister of the Crown asks the Speaker to facilitate—to agree to—the said recall. My understanding as of now, and I speak with some knowledge of contacts had, is that the Government are more inclined to the former route than the latter. It is, however, also the case that the Government’s thinking is potentially contingent upon, and therefore liable to be influenced by, the development of events over the next 48 or even 72 hours. The former route, in terms of the convenience both of Members and of the staff of this House, would be preferable, and I am very sensitive both to the needs of Members and to those of staff, and I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman and to colleagues more widely to remain alert and use my best endeavours to try to ensure that the House is in no way disadvantaged. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That was characteristically generous and gracious of him. At the risk of inflicting some damage upon his otherwise flourishing political career, I have on more than one occasion paid public tribute to the quality of the right hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons why he does not complain about urgent questions being granted, to which he has at short notice to answer, is that he is quick enough, bright enough, sharp enough, fair-minded enough, articulate enough and dextrous enough to be able to cope with whatever is thrown at him. I do not want this to become a mutual admiration society, because I am not sure whether it would be more damaging to him or me, but I thank him for what he said, for the way in which he said it and for the spirit that his remarks embody.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not seek for a minute to challenge your decision, not least because you would rule me out of order, but I have to say that I regret it and respect it. I say that for this reason. When the history books come to be written, you will be described as one of the great reforming Speakers of the House of Commons. You have indeed been the Back Benchers’ friend and supporter, but in every decision you have made, you have put one consideration above everything else: your wish to enable the House of Commons to discuss matters and to express a view.

There have been occasions when some in the House have taken umbrage at decisions that you have reached, but you have stood by your beliefs and principles, and many Members of this House are eternally grateful to you for having stood up for our rights, enabling us to debate and then to vote on something. The fact that the Speaker decides that something should be debated is not the Speaker saying that the House should agree it; it is the Speaker saying that we should be able to cast our vote. That is why we will regard you in that light for many, many years to come. Thank you very much indeed.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I have read those reports and they are of concern to me, as I know they are to the right hon. Gentleman and many others in the House.

The aim of the clause is not, as I think the Leader of the House suggested yesterday, to create a “marionette Government” but, I would argue, to give the Government the time they need to do their job. I say that because it is not clear what is happening at the moment, as we discussed yesterday, and how much negotiation is taking place when no proposals have been made. It is very hard to understand that, because I would have thought that the Government had been working flat out since July. It is also important to make the point that even if agreement was reached, it is very hard to see how it would be possible to get the House’s approval and pass all the legislation between 18 October or so and 31 October.

My final point is this. What would happen if we left with no deal? The Prime Minister talks about getting it done and ending the uncertainty, but the truth is—the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made this point powerfully—that no deal would not end anything. It would simply plunge us into greater uncertainty—uncertainty about the degree and length of disruption, uncertainty about the border arrangements in Northern Ireland, and uncertainty about our future trading relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners, the other members of the European Union.

Given that it has taken three years to get this far—in other words, not very far at all—and given that it took Canada seven years to negotiate a deal and the Prime Minister says he wants a super-Canada deal, it is going to take years to agree a new relationship. Every single EU member state, member state parliament and regional parliament will have to agree to any deal. No deal will not be the end of Brexit; it will only be the end of the beginning. In that time, faced with that degree of uncertainty, businesses will have countless decisions to make about where to invest, what to make and where, what to do about the sudden disappearance of all the arrangements that they have come to know and work within, and what to do about the sudden imposition of tariffs. It would be utterly irresponsible to allow that to happen. We have a duty to prevent it, and I hope the House will vote for this Bill tonight.

[Mr Speaker]

In an attempt to accommodate lots of Members who wish to take part, I am obliged to impose a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 18.

[Hilary Benn]

I support Lords amendment 1, which very sensibly provides for when the reports required under the Bill should be made to the House and provides an opportunity for the House to debate them. In other words, it provides a context in which we can discuss what is contained in those reports by requiring them to be made and requiring a motion to be presented to the House.

Given that other matters, which we debated at some length last week, have been added to the Bill since it was originally published—and have widened the scope of the Bill considerably beyond the original purpose solely relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly—it seems to me even more important that we have the provisions in Lords amendment 1 in the Bill. But there is a problem that my amendment seeks to fix if the House is not sitting—for example, because it has been prorogued —on the dates by which the reports have to be made, and the crucial dates are 4 September and 9 October. My amendment simply seeks to make provision for the House to be recalled in those circumstances to allow the opportunity for us to consider the reports and debate the motions that arise from the Bill if Lords amendment 1 is accepted by the House.

I should say at this stage that probably not every Member of the House is entirely familiar with the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, but the most important thing to recall is that section 1 is still on the statute book. It has been used, most recently in section 68(10) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and in section 28(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—indeed, the Civil Contingencies Act makes specific reference to the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797.

In other words, this amendment does not—I emphasise this—seek to establish a new constitutional principle. It simply seeks to use previous practice to make sure that Parliament is sitting when it needs to be sitting to debate these matters. As I hope the amendment makes clear, it would do so by requiring that Parliament be recalled on a specified day within the period in which compliance with subsection (2B) of Lords amendment 1 is required. In other words, the Minister would have to lay the report and the motion in neutral terms would have to be moved within the period of five calendar days, beginning with the end of the day on which the report was made. If my amendment is carried, we would be sitting in order to ensure that we had the chance both to consider the report and, crucially, to debate the motion that has been presented. That is the single purpose of my amendment. It would be rather odd—would it not?—for the House to legislate to provide for these reports and motions on specified dates, only to find itself not being here to consider the reports and to debate the motions because of some other action, namely the fact that we might not be sitting.

My final point is this: everyone in the House is well aware that Brexit has significant implications for the country as a whole, but it will have particular implications for Northern Ireland, which the Exiting the European Union Committee has reported on and many Members on both sides of the House have spoken of. I suppose that this amendment has a secondary effect: to ensure that the House would be sitting at a crucial time for our country, as I believe the country would expect us to be. I do not think that we could accept circumstances, if I may coin the phrase, in which we were sent missing in action, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Business without Debate

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said. Notwithstanding the existence of strongly differing opinions on this legislation, and on the wider issue of Brexit, I hope that all colleagues will share in the appreciation for the skill and dedication of our professional staff. Colin Lee, the Clerk at the Table sitting in front of me, is well known to many throughout the House as a quite outstanding public servant, and the same is true of the whole team who serve us so well and so faithfully and dispassionately day after day. That is respected, and I appreciate the fact that it has been put on the record by the right hon. Lady.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the unusual speed with which the legislation we have just approved has passed through both Houses, and given the Leader of the House’s business statement earlier today, are you able to advise us whether there is confidence that Royal Assent will indeed be granted tonight so that the motion under the Act—I think I am the first person to refer to it as an Act—once Royal Assent has been given, can be considered tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I am cautiously optimistic on that front. Steps are being put in train to ensure that Royal Assent is obtained before the House rises tonight. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to provide that information to the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is very gracious, and I trust it will be accepted in the spirit in which it has been proffered.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be in order to place on record the House’s thanks to, in particular, the Clerks and the staff of the Vote Office for the way in which they have received, marshalled, typed up, printed and distributed the papers that enabled us to consider the Bill this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

That is typically courteous of the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps enables us to conclude the proceedings on a note of some amity. I entirely endorse what he has said, and I think that that other colleagues will do so as well. Extreme professionalism has been required, and it has been provided. I thank all the Clerks at the Table, and many others who are not currently in the Chamber, for the work that they have done.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own inimitable way, and he gives every indication of being well satisfied with his prodigious efforts this evening.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The consequence of tonight’s votes is that the House has voted in favour of nothing. As a result, in 11 days’ time, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without an agreement unless the Prime Minister, who has just left the Chamber, acts. One thing that we have now voted three times to tell the Prime Minister is that we will not accept leaving the European Union without an agreement—the last time it was by 400 votes to 160. The Prime Minister indicated a week ago that she would respect the will of the House. Mr Speaker, has she given you any indication that she intends to make a statement from the Dispatch Box to the effect that she will now be writing to the European Council to seek a further extension to article 50?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Prime Minister has given me no such indication and I have received no such indication from any other Minister. Indeed, we have just had the results of the votes—I announced them only a matter of minutes ago—and there has been no communication to me from Government Ministers, but if that were to change I would of course notify the House, or it would become apparent to the House, ere long.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the record I can say that the Attorney General is shaking his head, and he dissents from the hon. Lady’s proposition. Forgive me, because I think the House will want to move on, but I hope she will accept it if I say that that is a political point. It is an important point, and I am not knocking it in any way, but it is not germane to the remit of the Chair, nor—if I may politely say so—is it material to the sittings of the House motion with which we are now dealing.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having just read the motion, I wonder whether an opportunity might be given for the Government to clarify a really important point. If the EU agrees that, if the motion is passed tomorrow, the UK will be granted an extension until 22 May, at that point it will no longer be possible for the United Kingdom to apply for a further extension, because we would have failed to make the arrangements necessary to take part in the European elections. Therefore, to pass this motion will preclude the United Kingdom from asking for any further extension. It would be helpful to the House if a Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and clarify that point.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say to people listening that I am mightily glad that the right hon. Gentleman was not asking me to adjudicate on that. It is very helpful that he has excused me from any responsibility. I do not sense that the Attorney General, who is comfortably seated on the Government Front Bench, is looking to come to the Dispatch Box, or indeed that the Leader of the House is inclined to do so. I think I can safely say—I do not think I will be accused of disclosing a state secret—that as things stand the Attorney General is intending to declaim from the Dispatch Box tomorrow.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do apologise to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee, whom I should have called several minutes ago.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In distinguishing between the character of the first meaningful vote and the second, in your statement you drew attention to the fact that, in the second meaningful vote, the Government had brought back additional documents, assurances and legal agreements that had not be contained within the first. Does your statement suggest in any way that, in order for a third meaningful vote not to fall within the statement that you have just made, it would require further changes to be agreed with the European Union, rather than, for example, the Government saying that they are prepared to make an offer to a particular party represented in this Chamber about its participation in future arrangements? In other words, would there have to be new political agreement under section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order for such a motion to be in order, as opposed to not in order?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would say—preliminarily and off the top of my head—that, in all likelihood, the answer to his question is yes; I do think that a demonstrable change to the proposition would be required. For example, simply a change in an opinion about something would not itself constitute a change in the offer. I would have to look at the particulars and make an honest assessment of the circumstances, and perhaps of the competing claims made as to the veracity of one proposition, argument or another, but, fundamentally, for something to be different, it has to be, by definition, fundamentally different—not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance—and this is in the context of a negotiation with others outside the United Kingdom. That would be my initial feeling.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Amendments will be considered at the point at which the Bill returns. That is the factual situation, and there is nothing that I can add at this stage.

[Hilary Benn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the important announcement made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in his closing speech that the Government intend to bring the neutral motion required under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to the House by Monday 25 March, I wonder if, given the nature of the business that has already been announced for next week, the Leader of the House, who is present, may wish to indicate to the House whether the Government might be inclined to table that motion before Monday 25 March? We really need to get on with the process of trying to agree a way forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which, of course, is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House can respond if she wishes. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is getting over-excited. He is a young pup—a new young Member—and I know that he requires encouragement.

If the Leader of the House wants to respond to the point of order she can, but she is under no obligation.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A motion of the House does not override statute law—that is true. If Members who have supported a motion want to ensure its ultimate success, further steps are required. I think that Members who have keenly attended to these matters in recent weeks are aware of that, and they know that there are opportunities available to them if they wish to take those opportunities.

[Hilary Benn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has just told the House, the time has come for two things to take place. The first is for the Government to respect the democratic instruction of the House of Commons. The second, since the Prime Minister says we have to be in favour of something—and I agree with her—is for the Government to facilitate the House of Commons having the chance to vote on a series of indicative propositions so that we can attempt to see whether we can find a way forward. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, I very much welcome what you said a moment ago about your willingness to ensure that the House of Commons gets the opportunity to debate that which it wishes to debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I stand by that: I think it is what any self-respecting Speaker should say and mean.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, and I will bring forward what I would have said after the business statement by the Leader of the House and say it now instead in light of that concern. To be fair, I thought the Prime Minister’s commitment about what will take place tomorrow and Thursday was clear. The detail of the motion is another matter, but the chronology of events was all very clear.

Let me just say this: I hope it will be helpful to the House if I indicate, as I did in respect of today’s proceedings when I addressed the House last night, an advisory cut-off time of 10.30 am on Wednesday for manuscript amendments to tomorrow’s motion. My strong expectation, and I think I heard it, is that the motion for tomorrow, in accordance with normal practice, will be tabled tonight before the close of business, and there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments up to 10.30 am tomorrow.

Amendments that reach the Table Office before the rise of the House tonight will appear on the Order Paper in the usual way, as those that were tabled before the close of business last night appeared on the Order Paper today in the usual way. The Table Office, which by the way we thank for its prodigious endeavours at this difficult time, will arrange the publication and distribution of a consolidated amendment list as soon as possible after 10.30 am on Wednesday, including all the manuscript amendments. I will announce my selection of amendments in the usual way at the beginning of the debate.

I hope that is helpful both to the right hon. Lady and, for that matter, to all colleagues.

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

These are important matters and, although the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is a self-effacing fellow, he is an important man.

[Hilary Benn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, further to your announcement about manuscript amendments to the motion we will debate tomorrow. Depending on the outcome of that vote, we will, as the Prime Minister has just made clear, come to a motion on Thursday about seeking an extension to article 50. Could you please clarify—depending on what time that motion is tabled tomorrow, which clearly cannot be until we have voted to reject leaving with no deal—what arrangements you intend to apply for Thursday to allow for manuscript amendments in the way you have just set out for Wednesday?

[Mr Speaker]

The hours will be different, because we start earlier on a Thursday, but I will apply the same logic and, I hope, sense of reasonableness and desire to accommodate colleagues. I have not yet come to a particular view about the precise deadline for Thursday, but it is something I am happy to discuss privately with the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues if they so wish. I will have the same consideration in mind. The House’s interest must be served, and I should seek to facilitate what Members want. I hope that is helpful.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for their points of order. I am reluctant at this time to specify a deadline or an intended target time. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I very much hope—with antennae finely attuned to the wishes of colleagues and the matter of basic courtesy in this place—that representatives of the Executive branch, who I am sure are keenly listening to these exchanges, will ensure that they get that motion down as soon as possible. If that is so, it may be that there is some time available tonight for colleagues who are interested to see what the Government have tabled. They would then have the advantage of that many more hours to consider whether to table an amendment—and, if so, which—and indeed to seek to garner support, possibly cross-party, for their amendment. However, if that is not the case, we will have to adjust as best we can.

There could well be several hours tomorrow in which Members will have sight of what has been tabled and will have the opportunity to table amendments. It is not to be assumed that we will necessarily be on to the business immediately after question time. There may be a longer period of time than that for colleagues to make their judgments about the matter. Certainly as far as I am concerned, the longer time that colleagues have to table amendments if they so wish, the better. The Government are perfectly entitled simply to put the motion down just before the close of business tonight—possibly obliged to do so because of what has taken place in Strasbourg, or possibly because of a judgment that they have made. That is not really my concern. My concern is that colleagues should be facilitated; and I will do on this occasion, as on every other, everything I can to facilitate the House. My role is to champion the legislature, not to be a nodding donkey for the Executive branch.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The annunciator tells us that there is to be a statement on Brexit. It might be helpful to the House if you were able to confirm whether it is your understanding that that is not necessarily going to follow sequentially upon the other statements that are going to be made, and that it might be quite a bit later this evening. That may have a bearing on the two points of order to which you have just responded.

[Mr Speaker]

Certainly that statement will be the last of any statements today, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in expecting that it will not simply follow after the second statement. My understanding at the moment is that that statement would either come at the moment of interruption—which, I say for the benefit of those from outside the House attending our proceedings, is at 10 o’clock—or it might come a little earlier than that. But is it to be expected that it will automatically come straight after the second statement? No. It will come when the Government are in a position to make—dare I say it—a meaningful statement to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think there is a point of order from Mr Ian Blackford. I hope it is a genuine point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that greatly added to the intellectual quality of the exchange, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman has made his point with some force, and it is on the record, but I do not think it requires a response from the Chair at this time. I am sorry if I have misunderstood, but I feel he has put his point, and it rests and will be assessed and evaluated by all colleagues.

[Hilary Benn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Next Tuesday, the House will vote again on the withdrawal agreement. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was due to appear before the Committee yesterday but cancelled for perfectly understandable reasons—he was in Brussels with the Attorney General negotiating. We of course accept that, but we have offered him other times this week and next Monday afternoon, none of which have been accepted so far.

While we understand that negotiations will continue, I was very surprised to learn this morning, at a meeting of the Committee, that the Secretary of State’s office had offered times to individual members of the Committee for him to meet them later on Monday afternoon, but had not so far confirmed that he would be available to appear before the Committee. Given that next Tuesday we may well be considering further legal assurances related to the withdrawal agreement, the Committee is absolutely clear that we must hear from him before we vote on Tuesday.

I would not normally raise a point of order on such a matter, Mr Speaker, but given its urgency and the profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs, what advice can you give the Committee so that we can secure the Secretary of State’s attendance—which is his job—before we vote next Tuesday?

[Mr Speaker]

My advice is simple: persist, persist, persist.

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is held in the highest esteem in, I think, all parts of the House, that if he, on behalf—and clearly with the agreement—of the Committee, seeks the presence of the Secretary of State prior to an important debate and attendant vote, the Secretary of State should appear before the Committee. That cannot be compelled, certainly not by the Chair, but it is manifest and, I think, incontrovertible that it is desirable in terms of the scrutiny and accountability process; from which something else follows.

Simply offering individual meetings with members of the Committee does not remotely pass muster. The fact is that the Select Committee is an established body in the House, established to scrutinise the Government’s Brexit policy, and it has a corporate character. Indeed, its members are operating not merely as individual Members of Parliament, but as part of a body politic—in this case, as part of that Committee. So my advice to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should persist, making it absolutely clear that it is the view of the Committee that the presence of the Secretary of State is desired. It is frankly, if I may say so, a point so blindingly obvious—[Interruption.] Be quiet, young man. In ethical terms, it is so manifestly fair, that that is what should happen.

Point of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is tackling financial crime and money laundering essential for the reputation of this country, but if the Government feel that they can get away with changing a date contained in an amendment to legislation passed by this House in relation to this Bill, what is to stop them doing it on lots of other bits of legislation?

Further to the Government’s decision today to pull the Bill at the last minute—I think that is a discourtesy to the House, since it was on the Order Paper—have you, Mr Speaker, been given any indication by Government Ministers about when and whether they intend to return the Bill to the House not only so that we can fix what they have tried to do, but to add further protection in this matter covering the Crown dependencies as well as the overseas territories?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that is an expression of opinion and political debate, which is not a matter for arbitration by the Chair.

[Hilary Benn]

I shall also vote for amendment (j) tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and amendment (i) in the names of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).

Whatever happens, it is now quite clear that we are going to need more time. One day, the Prime Minister will stand up at the Dispatch Box—unless she is required by the House to do so before then—and say, “I am now applying for an extension to article 50.” Although she may not be willing today to face up to the real choices that confront us, the day will soon come when she will have to, because there is a choice to be made in this House about the future relationship that we want.

As the Prime Minister is asking for suggestions, here is mine: we should ask the European Union now to negotiate the details of the future relationship. When the EU says, “Well, we can’t do that; of course we can’t sign an agreement,” we can point to paragraph 23 of the political declaration, which mentions

“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions”.

It talks about building and improving on

“the single customs territory…which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin.”

Note that it says “no tariffs”, not zero tariffs. No tariffs means a customs union. The problem is that the Prime Minister cannot bring herself to say those words. If we have been able, in the negotiations thus far, to reach agreement on something as specific as no tariffs, there is no reason in principle that we cannot do the same with all the other things that need to be sorted out. If that did happen, the fears on the Government Benches and the Opposition Benches about what the future relationship might look like could be resolved, and at that point, while remaining members of the EU, we could vote on whether we accepted the withdrawal agreement.

While I very much hope that the House of Commons will take control of the process, I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, when he said that there is nothing unconstitutional about us doing our job. There is nothing unconstitutional about my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford in effect bringing forward a private Member’s Bill and, through her amendment— if it is successful—putting it on the Order Paper for 5 February.

[Hilary Benn]

I am concluding.

We pass private Members’ Bills every year and there is nothing wrong about that. We need to take control of the process because the Government have clearly lost control of it. The moment will come when we have to decide what we want, and not just how we get to the point of decision. For any progress to be made on that in future, what we will need more than anything else—the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) alluded to this in his intervention—is open minds, rather than minds that are closed to the risks that are now facing our country.

[Mr Speaker]

There is now a six-minute time limit.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to respond to the point of order from the right hon. Lady, and I thank her for giving me notice of it. She has kindly shown me the press report to which she refers, but she knows that I have not yet had the opportunity to study it carefully. Moreover, it is not our normal practice to respond to any and every press report based upon a briefing from someone who perhaps thinks that he or she knows what the procedures are in this place but does not always fully do so.

It is true to say that the default position under Standing Order No. 16(1) is that debates pursuant to an Act of Parliament must be concluded after 90 minutes, flowing from which there tends to be a practical restriction on amendments because the time has lapsed, and therefore only one amendment in such a hypothetical situation would be taken. However, it is also true to say that such provision is often disapplied by an Order of the House.

I must emphasise that all of this is hypothetical at this stage, and I do not think it would be helpful to speculate on what may happen subsequent to the decision of the House next Tuesday. I can, however, confirm that the right hon. Lady is quite correct in saying that it is perfectly open to the Government, if such a situation were to arise, to provide for a much fuller debate. In those circumstances, there would predictably be a significant number of colleagues who would want to put their own propositions on the paper. I am extremely confident that if that hypothetical scenario were to arise, colleagues would assert themselves.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you confirm that it would be open to Members of the House to seek to remedy this potential problem by tabling an amendment to the withdrawal agreement motion for next week, because this matter would inevitably flow from a consequence of the withdrawal agreement not being carried by the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to reflect on that. It may be possible for that to be done. If it is possible for it to be done, it may well be a matter of judgment as to whether it is thought to be worth doing. The reason there is no great hurry on that matter is, of course, that I am not even in a position, under the Order passed on 4 December, to select amendments until the final day of the debate. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman heard me explaining, in response to a point of order from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) this morning, that it was quite wrong for people to talk about amendments that had been accepted. She mentioned to me in her point of order that allegedly the Government had signalled their acceptance of a particular amendment. That was a wholly inapposite report or claim. No amendment has been accepted at this stage, because no amendment has yet been selected. I am not allowed to select any amendment until the final day, so some people really do need to keep up with what the procedure is. The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time in which to reflect on these matters.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to other colleagues, if that is what colleagues wish.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the crisis that the country is facing over Brexit, the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just said, the House of Commons is taking back control is to be welcomed, rather than feared. Mr Speaker, you have made your ruling; it is clear; the House should respect it. I wonder whether you could advise us on how we could now move on to the business of the day, to which I think the nation expects us to turn our attention.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am in the hands of colleagues, and I think he knows me well enough to know that I have never ducked a challenge. That is not in my nature; it has been no part of my DNA, either since I have been in this House or in all my life before I came into Parliament. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) says from a sedentary position words to the effect of “Let’s get on.” I would like to move on, but I do wish to treat colleagues with courtesy. [Interruption.] Somebody said “You can,” but I will take a few remaining points of order if people wish to raise them. I say very gently to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who just raised his point of order and talked about the dignity of the Chair and the importance of our procedures, that if people are going to invoke that importance, it would be helpful if they did not undermine that self-same point by continuous and repetitive dispute.

Business of the House

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will happily take the point of order afterwards.

[Hilary Benn]

It is on this very issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I still think it preferable to take it at the end of the statement. I will be happy to take it then, if it is of procedural relevance, which I am sure it is.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inadvertently neglected to congratulate the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on an important birthday on Monday, but I belatedly express the hope that he enjoyed himself, being fêted by family, friends and, as appropriate, his Select Committee—I call Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. There was nowhere I would rather have spent my birthday than in the House of Commons questioning the Prime Minister on the Brexit deal, and I am sure that the same is true of the Prime Minister. On today’s urgent question, the Government are of course unable to analyse the political declaration because no one has the faintest idea about what kind of economic relationship will result from it, so instead, they have chosen to model the Chequers plan—the facilitated customs arrangements and the common rulebook—which has already been explicitly rejected by the European Union, which is why we have ended up with a vague political declaration. What is the purpose of trying to rest the Government’s case about minimising economic damage to the country on an option that the EU has already told us that it will not agree to?

EU: Future Relationship White Paper

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I say to you, Mr Speaker, that I hope a new principle has been established today that, in future, Members of the House will receive copies of White Papers at the same time as members of the fourth estate? In welcoming, genuinely, the Secretary of State to his post—a post that has many challenges—may I suggest that he organise a briefing for Members of the House, with officials, on the White Paper, in line with the very helpful briefing that was held on Monday on the Chequers agreement?

In the statement on the Chequers agreement, the Government said that they would “commit by treaty” to ongoing harmonisation with EU rules on goods. If the facilitated customs arrangement is agreed by the EU, will it be ready to be implemented by 31 December 2020? If not, what arrangements do the Government propose to put in place to cover the gap there would then be between that date and the date on which the new arrangements would finally and fully come into effect?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Secretary of State replies, let me say that I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. For the avoidance of doubt, and for future good practice, it must be accepted that documents about which statements are to be made should not first be released to the media, even under protected conditions—other than in the most exceptional circumstances—before being released to Members of the House. The Secretary of State is a very assiduous parliamentarian and a person of great courtesy, so it seems to me obvious that he will readily accept that. When a point is made with such force by the Chair of a Select Committee, and a similar point is made by the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I think I am right in saying that that point brooks no contradiction.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does not this compromise give enormous power to you, Mr Speaker? That is all very well, because you are a Speaker who has stood up for the rights of this House and of Back Benchers, and for the majority in this House to be able to have meaningful votes, but were you to fall under a bus in the next few months, what guarantee would there be that a future Speaker would stand up for the rights of this House in the same way that you have done?

[Mr Speaker]

I will do my best to observe the road safety code.

[Hilary Benn]

It is not for me to advise you, Mr Speaker, but please do not cross any roads between now and the end of this process.

It seems to me that the Government’s intention throughout has been to seek to neuter this House when we come to the end of the process. We are talking about the possibility of facing no deal at all. In his speech from our Front Bench, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set the position out very clearly: first, not only would we be facing economic difficulty of the most serious kind—with impacts on trade, on our services industry and on broadcasting—but there would be impacts on the security of our nation, because with no deal in place, how would the exchange of information continue? These are not minor matters; they go to the heart of the Government’s responsibility to make sure that we are safe, that industry works, that taxes are raised and that public services are paid for. That is why people are getting exercised about this. It is not just some amendment to one Bill; it is the most important decision that the country has faced for generations.

As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we are not ready to cope with the consequences. Members should contemplate this, for a moment: if, because the House cannot do anything about it, we fall off the edge of the cliff, and future generations look at us and say, “What did you do at that moment? What did you do? Didn’t you say anything?”, are we, as the House of Commons, really going to allow our hands to be bound and say, “Well, at least I took note of what was happening”? Our responsibility is not to take note; it is to take charge, to take responsibility and to do our job.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The last speech without a time limit—although I know that he will be sensitive to the demands of time—is from Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I shall also follow him in not taking interventions, because many Members wish to speak. I wish to talk about the EEA amendment tabled by our Front Benchers and the EEA amendment that came from the House of Lords, and to explain why I shall be voting for both.

Time is running out, not just in the debate this afternoon but for the country. For far too long over the past two years, we have wasted time with a lot of dreaming—dreaming about the easiest trade deal in history, dreaming about us holding all the cards and dreaming that we will get the exact same benefits. The moment when that finally came to an end was when the Prime Minister spoke at the Mansion House and admitted that it was not really going to be like that. This is the moment when we need to tell each other the truth: there are choices that we face; there are trade-offs that we have to accept; and there are decisions that need to be made, which is the point just made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.

If I may use an analogy, it seems to me that we have decided as a country to disembark from a liner in the middle of the ocean, and we have two basic choices: we can jump into the sea, which is what a hard no-deal Brexit would mean, or we can climb down into a lifeboat and decide where we are going. What are those in the Cabinet doing at the moment? They have spent two years arguing, first about how to create a deep and special lifeboat. They are trying to come up with a lifeboat that will not breach their red lines, and they have broken up into working groups, probably discussing the size, colour and shape of the lifeboat. The only thing that has not happened yet is a Minister getting up at the Dispatch Box and announcing that no lifeboat is better than a bad lifeboat. I tell you, Mr Speaker, it is not funny. The truth is that it is extremely serious indeed.

What does all of this mean? It means that we have not yet agreed as a country what we want for the future of the relationship. Not only is the promised White Paper now not going to appear until next month, but we learned this week that there will be a two-day away day in Chequers where the Cabinet tries to thrash things out. That means there will be one European Council left on 18 October—one—at which to sort out all the things we have been debating yesterday and today and to agree the political declaration, which is all about the future of our country. As a result, we have barely begun to discuss what might be in that political declaration at a time when, as the Prime Minister said in her G7 statement on Monday, the international rules-based order is under a threat that it has not been under at any time since it was created at the end of the second world war.

We are in a perilous place. Business is losing patience; we know that. The EU is frankly bewildered about what is going on in this country. The British people, to judge by the polls, think the whole thing is going very badly. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made the point really well—it is true—that in this place and outside, people have whispered conversations in which we say, “What on earth is going on?”

The consequences of getting this wrong for the country will be deeply damaging for our future and for the jobs, livelihoods and public services that depend upon our economic strength. That is what we are debating. There is so much at stake that it is frankly difficult to overstate it. Let me say it plainly: we have had enough of management in the party interest. What we desperately need now is leadership in the national interest.

That brings me to the EEA amendment and the question of our future relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partner: the 27 countries of the EU. The truth is that on both sides of the House we are all debating, and sometimes disagreeing on, what kind of framework would be best. The Government now accept that we will be staying in a customs union and, in all likelihood, aligning with the rules of the single market for quite some time to come, because nothing has yet been agreed that can possibly replace the benefits we derive from both.

The same outcome will inevitably result from the proposed Northern Ireland backstop, although it is currently silent on the question of regulations and the internal market, which is why I described it last week as half a backstop. That omission will have to be remedied between now and the end of this month, because half a backstop will not do the business when it comes to getting the European Council to agree with it. And by the way, it is ludicrous to debate whether the backstop is time-limited, because the truth is terribly simple: the backstop will remain in place as long as necessary, until something else comes along that can replace it and achieve the same objective, which is maintaining an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I am afraid that was about politics, not about policy.

That is also true of the debate about maximum facilitation and the customs partnership, although both ideas strike many people as costly, bureaucratic, burdensome and reliant on technology that is not yet in operation. However, being a generous soul, let me say that even if the Cabinet, on its away day, manages to reach agreement on one or the other, and even if the EU negotiators said, “Okay, let’s give it a go”—I do not think there is any prospect of that whatsoever—we all know that neither of them could be put in place by December 2020. It is too late: too much time has been wasted. That is why the transition period, or a transition period, is going to have to be extended by one means or another, whether that is with the backstop or an agreement on a way forward. That is where we are heading by default, so the question is: what form should the next transition, from January 2021 onwards, take? This is where the EEA comes in, because that would be one way of doing it.

Let me turn to the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and Lords amendment 51 on the EEA. Both are about a future framework and the internal market, and the difference here—apart from the free movement issue, which I will say a word about in a moment—is really quite small, and I very much welcome what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend, who leads for the Opposition, about having an open mind. I will of course vote for his amendment, because who could argue with the notion of full access to the single market? If it is not successful, I will vote for the EEA amendment, because we need to keep our options open. To return to my analogy, it has the one great advantage that it at least looks like a lifeboat, and I have to say that the closer we get to October, the less inviting the cold sea appears to those thinking of jumping off the side of the ship.

I am the first to acknowledge that the EEA option is not perfect. I do not want us to be like Norway, and I am not arguing that we should have a deal like Norway’s. Apart from anything else, we want to remain in a customs union. As Michel Barnier repeated yesterday, it would be an option to have the EEA plus a customs union. Let us acknowledge that.

We should seek some changes to the way in which free movement currently operates. Some of those could be made within the current rules of the European Union, which we will be leaving. Others would involve discussion of the emergency brake, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I have tabled amendment (b), which refers to “safeguard measures”. The Exiting the European Union Committee, which I have the honour to chair, drew attention, in its report on the future UK-EU relationship, to the possibility of additional flexibility on free movement. We need to make sure that our agricultural and fish exports can continue to move freely.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will have one more speech of up to 10 minutes, but then the limit will have to be cut, because I want to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is with some hesitation that I involve myself in the negotiation that the Government are clearly attempting to conduct with their own Back Benchers. I simply want to observe that this is the single most important amendment that we will be discussing today and tomorrow in relation to the role that Parliament should and indeed must play in determining what kind of Brexit happens.

I simply do not accept the argument that the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members have advanced in trying to suggest that this proposal is somehow illegitimate or improper, or is intended to overturn the result of the referendum. Is it improper for this House to decide that in leaving the EU, we wish to remain within a customs union with it? Is it improper for this House to decide that we wish to remain in a single market, or to continue to have the European arrest warrant system, or that we want to co-operate in future with our friends and neighbours on foreign policy, defence and security? If the answer to all those questions is no, it is not improper; this Lords amendment is about giving Parliament the ability to ensure it can exercise that judgment when the time comes. It seeks to make it clear who will be in control when we come to the end of the process: the Government can go away and negotiate, but they will have to win the consent of the House when they return.

The Government’s attempts to neuter the Lords amendment will not work for a number of reasons that have been set out already. I say to the Solicitor General that, frankly, we do not have more time, which is why this is the moment when we have to make the choice. Secondly, as has been clearly pointed out, it makes no provision for what happens in the event of there being no deal. The House is aware of what the consequence of no deal would be for the border in Northern Ireland, our trade, the rights of British citizens abroad and EU citizens here, future co-operation on security and many other matters.

Gaza Border Violence

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If colleagues will forgive me, I think I can probably say without fear of contradiction that the Minister of State is almost universally respected in the House and very widely liked. Nobody enjoys hearing the Minister of State more than Mr Speaker. I say very gently, just as a guide, that I am quite keen to accommodate all colleagues on this matter. The Minister of State’s answers are up to him, but if he can bear that in mind, it would be hugely appreciated.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

All countries, Israel included, of course, have the right to defend themselves, but there is no justification—none whatsoever—for the IDF shooting at and killing unarmed protestors inside Gaza. Although I agree with the Minister that the fact that there is currently no peace process at all is the greatest tragedy of all, and that we must continue to strive for one with the courageous political leadership that that will involve, will he not agree in return that the very least we can do in these circumstances is to tell the truth about what is going on? Had it happened anywhere else, I think the condemnation would have been unequivocal.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is a regular visitor to all those retail outlets in his constituency, and doubtless those shopping alongside him are veritably delighted to brush shoulders with their local Member of Parliament.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central (Lab)]

Asda said this morning that it will continue to be run from its head office in the centre of Leeds, where just over 2,000 people are employed. Given that in the last few months there have been two rounds of job losses at Asda’s head office, and in the light of what the Minister has just said about the merger providing an opportunity to cut costs, what assurance can he give staff in the head office that their jobs are safe?

European Council

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

My apologies to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who has migrated backwards from his usual seat.

[Hilary Benn]

Only temporarily.

[Mr Speaker]

It is only a temporary move.

[Hilary Benn]

The United Kingdom is a world leader in aerospace defence and satellite systems. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the attempts that the European Commission is apparently making to freeze British companies out of Galileo contracts that are due to be issued in June are consistent with the transitional arrangements? If not, what does she propose to do about it?

Carillion

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the people of Woodford Green would prefer to be known as the residents of Woodford Green rather than of Wood Green, and it may be that the residents of Wood Green would rather be known to reside in Wood Green than in Woodford Green.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that all annual fee payments made thus far by public authorities to Carillion in respect of private finance initiative contracts will now cease and that the liquidator will not be allowed to sell any of those contracts on to anyone else, so that there will not be a reward in the hands of others for the failures of this company?

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If I am to accommodate a significant number of colleagues, there will be a premium on brevity, which is always brilliantly exemplified by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

We all hope that the Government find a form of words that enables the negotiations to move on to phase 2, but do they not have to realise that the reason why there is this problem is because of their decision to leave the customs union and the single market? Given that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives and the Mayor of London have both suggested that whether it is convergence or no divergence, it should be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, is it not time for the Government finally to recognise that they need to make a different decision if they are to avoid the imposition of a hard border in Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. My apologies to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who rose momentarily after his right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)—cue him being called second, but I am sure he does not mind.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

In March, the Foreign Secretary said that leaving the EU with no deal would be perfectly okay. Last month, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain. Given that the two positions are clearly completely contradictory, who should the British public believe?

G20

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am certain that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will be as brief as his surname.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The G20 discussed energy security. The Prime Minister will no doubt be aware of growing anxiety on both sides of the House about her proposal to withdraw the UK from the Euratom treaty, despite concern about the implications for the movement of scientists, nuclear materials and life-saving radiotherapies. Can she explain what the UK nuclear industry will gain from such a policy?

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Will I get more injury time, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed.

[Hilary Benn]

Then of course I give way.

Britain in the World

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at the last election, political parties that did not trust the British people with a referendum on their relationship with the EU were ultimately not trusted in the ballot box—except in Scotland, whose population have, I believe, had enough of referendums for a generation, if not a lifetime? His party is now suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, but four weeks ago he did not want anyone to have a vote. He has no credibility in relation to the EU referendum, and neither does his party.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I encourage Members, in the kindliest spirit, to be economical with their interventions? Given that 56 Members wish to speak, some consideration of each other would be appreciated.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I shall deal shortly with the hon. Gentleman’s point about that part of the franchise.

Let me also say to the Foreign Secretary that reform in Europe is not solely down to what one country asks for at one moment in time. It is about building alliances and making friends, as the Prime Minister is now discovering, and that approach too can bring big change over time. The fundamental challenge that we face now is to make the case that Britain’s place lies in a reforming European Union. Why? Because this is about jobs, investment, growth, influence and security.

Last year we marked the centenary of the outbreak of the great war—the muddy slaughter that claimed the flower of a generation from Europe—and this year we commemorate the end of the second world war. We should never forget, bearing in mind that what we thought would never happen again is now happening in other parts of the world, that as the leaders of post-war Europe looked upon the names of the fallen carved on their gravestones, row upon row upon row, they resolved they would bring the nations of Europe together in the interests of peace. Seventy years on, that has lasted, but we can never take it for granted, and we can never take for granted the other benefits that membership of the EU has brought.

The removal of barriers to trade has helped to create and sustain jobs. It gives us access to a market of 500 million people. Nearly half the trade and foreign investment in this country comes from the EU, and competing in the single market with the best companies in the world helps to drive innovation and creates new markets for British businesses. The EU has improved living standards throughout Europe and for British workers by giving them, for instance, the right to paid holiday and equal treatment.

Given all that, it makes no sense for us to turn our back on Europe, and to leave it on the wing and a prayer of a better deal outside. Those who point to Norway and Switzerland should note what the Foreign Secretary himself told the House recently, when he drew attention to the terms that those two countries had negotiated for access to the single market. He said:

“those terms require the Swiss and Norwegians to accept wholesale the body of EU law without having any say in the making of it, to contribute financially and to abide by the principles of free movement.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2015; Vol. 593, c. 807-08.]

Those are some of the many reasons for Labour’s belief that the European Union is central to our future prosperity, and by the end of 2017 the British people will make the most important decision about our place in the world that they have faced for 40 years when they vote on our membership of the EU. We will campaign for a yes vote, and we will argue for British 16 and 17-year-olds to be given a say in that decision, because it is about their future too—just as we argued in the general election so recently fought that the franchise for all elections in this country should be extended to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

The right hon. Gentleman will readily understand that when we came to office, the Prevent strategy was moved to the Home Office. We have concentrated on the matters that bring people together and encourage communities not to be isolated. We have spent the best part of £45 million on that endeavour, on things ranging from “English First”, which ensures English is taught in perhaps unusual places—trying to target young mothers, for example—to putting a lot of money, about £10 million, into the recruitment of detached youth workers to appropriate organisations. We have also funded groups that work together, whether it be in mosques, churches or synagogues. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we all have an obligation in this regard. Speaking as someone brought up in a multicultural city, I think this issue goes far deeper than funding streams. It is an extraordinary sight to see someone born and brought up in this country participating in atrocities in the middle east. I pledge the Government, along with the Opposition, to work hard on this—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but we have many questions to get through.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. Given what he said, however, why does he think that last month the widely respected counter-extremism think-tank Quilliam criticised his Department’s failure to produce a proper strategy as “catastrophic”? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that much more needs to be done across government and the country to protect our young people, including confronting head-on Islamic State’s repugnant ideology, its promoters and apologists here in the United Kingdom and its utter contempt for our democracy and way of life? As he does so, he will have the full support of the Opposition.

Core Cities

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to answer.

I have laid in the Library today a copy of a document that the Government are publishing entitled “Unlocking growth in cities”, and I have laid a written ministerial statement. The document outlines a new framework for the relationship between our larger cities and central Government.

England’s largest cities—many of the issues in question are devolved matters—are the economic powerhouses of our country. We are offering them a menu of new powers that we want to explore as part of a series of bespoke “city deals”. The ability to do that comes from an amendment that was introduced into the Localism Bill, which was promoted by the core cities group and attracted all-party support. It allowed powers to be devolved to cities in future, and I believe it is important to act on it.

Our cities have great potential to contribute more to growth, and to enable them to do that we want to free them from Whitehall control in a number of areas, with the aim of stimulating growth. The first wave of deals that we propose will be with the eight largest cities and their surrounding local enterprise partnerships. As with any deal, cities will have to offer something in return for their new powers and funding. They must guarantee that they can provide strong and accountable leadership, improve efficiency and outcomes, and be innovative in their approach.

The bespoke approach of recognising the differences between cities and allowing licensed exceptions is a new idea to put cities back in charge of their own economic destiny and enable them to seize the opportunities for growth. It represents a big shift in how Whitehall works, with the presumption being that powers should be handed down wherever cities make a convincing case.

It is important to say that today’s document sets out a series of indicative options for the transfers of control that could be considered as part of each deal-making process. The list is not intended to be a statement of policy or represent an automatic entitlement for cities. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive, but it might help the House if I give some examples of the content of the document.

We want to bring an end to the current system of requiring cities to bid to different Whitehall departments for different pots of cash, whether for roads or housing. Instead, we want to explore whether they can get one consolidated capital pot, to direct as they see fit. We want them to have the ability to set lower business rates for certain types of company. We already have very successful business improvement districts, and sometimes firms in a particular sector across a wider area may benefit from the same degree of flexibility.

There will be a £1 billion boost to the regional growth fund to create jobs, and we will encourage cities to bid for that money to help clusters of businesses in their area, so one bid could help several small companies. We know that many small businesses find the system of taking on apprentices daunting, so cities will be able to set up city apprenticeship hubs, which will help local employers and local people to make the most of the opportunities offered by apprenticeships.

We want to improve the way in which services work together in cities, to make it easier for people to get back into work instead of being passed from one service to another—from Jobcentre Plus to the town hall to a careers adviser. That can be done under one roof, and we want to make that possible. We also want to offer powers over infrastructure to unlock investments in improving transport, housing and broadband. Currently, transport projects can be delayed because cities have to go through the Whitehall machinery, but they may have the capacity to make some of the decisions themselves. Cities should also be able to have more of a say on their priorities for housing and regeneration, instead of having to go through the Homes and Communities Agency.

Cities will be able to bid for a share in a £100 million capital investment pot to spend on ambitious broadband infrastructure projects. We expect bids to include a range of projects, including superfast broadband for strategic business areas and city-wide high-speed mobile connectivity.

As I said, we want to start with the eight core cities that proposed the amendment to the Localism Bill, but I wish to be clear that our vision extends to the whole of urban Britain. I will be open to suggestions from other cities about how they can make use of the powers that the Bill, now the Localism Act 2011, gives them.

The powers that we are proposing will help to allow our cities to be the economic, social and cultural magnets that they have the potential to be, and places where people aspire to live. Our cities have too often been straining at Whitehall’s leash, and they now have an opportunity to seize the powers that are available to them. I hope that the conversation and negotiations that we will have in the months ahead will be fruitful, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I notice that the Minister refers to his “statement” to the House, and his observations did somewhat exceed the time limit allocated to Ministers for dealing with urgent questions—so much so that one wonders whether he might have considered making an oral statement in the first instance.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but it should not have taken an urgent question to bring him to the Dispatch Box this morning. Once again, a major policy announcement affecting local government, this time made in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech in my constituency this morning, is all over the national and regional media, who were clearly pre-briefed yesterday, whereas the House should have been told first today.

The efforts of councils and communities up and down the country make the biggest contribution to our cities, and it is the Government’s job to help them do so. At least the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged today that areas once synonymous with urban decay were “dramatically revived” thanks to Labour’s investment. However, when we examine the “unprecedented transfer of power” that he has talked of, in fact we find unprecedented cuts, as confirmed in this morning’s local government settlement, on top of the cuts already resulting from the scrapping of regional development agencies. Those cuts are substantial, front-loaded and unfair.

Will the Minister explain why the 10% most deprived local authorities, which include the core cities of Manchester and Liverpool, are facing reductions in their spending power nearly four times greater than the 10% least deprived authorities? There is only one way to describe that, and it is as balancing the books on the backs of the poor or, when it comes to job losses, on the backs of women, who have lost twice as many jobs in local government as men since the coalition was formed. How many more public sector jobs will be lost in the core cities in view of the revised Office for Budget Responsibility forecast published last week?

When does the Minister expect the new powers for the core cities to be confirmed? He has assured the House today that they will be available regardless of the outcome of the mayoral referendums, so when does he propose to extend them to other councils?

On the devolution of local funding, we developed single pot funding, a good idea that is now being taken forward. We welcome that, but will the Minister tell the House by how much the Government have slashed local capital spending in the core cities? Is that not why we now face an “infrastructure deficit”? Those are not my words but those of the Prime Minister.

How will reducing the affordable housing budget by nearly £4 billion unleash the power of local councils, including the core cities, when it means that they will find it much more difficult to provide the homes that their people need?

Councils will welcome a role on apprenticeships, although many already play a role, but why are local authorities, including the core cities, excluded from playing a part in the Work programme? Surely they should have a role in helping people to find jobs, which is an urgent task up and down the country.

On the changes to local government finance announced by the Deputy Prime Minister today, which will affect all councils, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no local authority will lose out financially? Will there be effective redistribution from the most well off to the least well off? How much of the increase in business rate revenue do the Government plan to keep for themselves? How exactly is that localisation?

On the business rate discounts, to which the Minister referred, who will decide where and to which industry they can be offered, and will he assure us that that will not just result in better-off areas being the ones that can attract new businesses?

The Opposition support strong and innovative local government, which should have the powers it needs to do that job, but no amount of warm words will hide two very uncomfortable facts: the Government are cutting unfairly and their failed economic policy is undermining the growth of our core cities and all local communities, when what they really need is a change of course.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made it very clear on a number of occasions that Government announcements should be made first to this House. Over the weekend, there were a number of stories in the media, complete with quotes from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, about the contents of today’s written statement about council tax on empty and second homes, which was made available only in the last hour and a half. This is the second time in a week that Communities and Local Government Ministers acting in this way has given rise to a point of order. Do you think such actions are acceptable and, if not, what can be done?

[Mr Speaker]

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I shall look into the specifics of this case, and in particular into what he has just said about attributed quotes. Secondly, let me reiterate a point that, as he rightly observes, I have made on innumerable occasions: it is a matter of straightforward courtesy and parliamentary propriety that statements of policy should first be made to this House, not elsewhere, and not by nods and winks or by leaks. I hope that is clear.

Point of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for taking this point of order, which, for reasons that will readily become apparent, is time critical. Last night, a Member on the Government Benches objected to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) being put on to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. This was done in the knowledge that it would prevent her from being able to attend today’s very important Committee meeting, at which Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch are giving evidence. There is, however, a motion on the Order Paper, tabled by the Committee of Selection, that will allow the House to vote to put this right, but it will not be debated until later. Is there anything you can do, Mr Speaker, to enable it to be taken now, or earlier, so that my hon. Friend can take her place alongside the other members of the Committee when they meet at 2.30 this afternoon?

[Mr Speaker]

As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this is an unconventional time for points of order, but as his inquiry is time critical I have exercised my discretion, as I did yesterday, to take the point of order. The answer is that, for the protection of all parts of the House, the Order Paper is settled at the end of the previous sitting. The Back-Bench business takes precedence, and the motion to which he refers is one that cannot be made without notice. I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am, and I will be. The Leader of the House has indicated that the public interest requires that the House should meet this Wednesday. It might be helpful to the House to say that, if I receive a formal request from the Government after the House adjourns tomorrow under Standing Order No. 13, I will appoint 11.30 on Wednesday as the time for the House to meet. The business to be taken at that sitting will be set down by the Government, and the Leader of the House has given a helpful indication of what that will be.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First thing this morning, the Leader of the Opposition called for the House to meet on Wednesday, so I welcome the confirmation that we have just had from the Leader of the House that the Government will seek the recall of the House. However, given that events are indeed moving at a very fast pace, can we be clear on three matters? First, given the large and growing number of questions that now need to be answered by the Prime Minister concerning his judgment, it is essential that he lead the debate on Wednesday. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication that he will do so, and of what form the debate will take?

Secondly, the Home Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will tomorrow take very important evidence from Sir Paul Stephenson, Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch. If those Committees produce reports overnight, can you confirm that the House will have a full opportunity to debate those reports and any recommendations as part of Wednesday’s business?

Thirdly, as there may be issues of parliamentary privilege that arise from Lord Leveson’s inquiry—for example, whether Parliament was lied to, or about the disclosure of material—have you had any indication from the Government, Mr Speaker, as to how they propose to handle matters of privilege in the inquiry’s terms of reference?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for that point of order. First, as far as the Minister fielded by the Government is concerned, that is a matter for the Government. The Leader of the House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and will be at liberty to respond, after I have finished saying what I am about to say, if he so wishes.

Secondly, so far as the content of the business is concerned, I wait for the Government to decide upon their motion. Once again, it is for the Leader of the House to indicate, as and when he is ready to do so, to the House the proposed terms of the debate. Thirdly, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I again await further and better particulars from the Leader of the House, but I should certainly have thought that the reports and the consideration preceding such reports to which the shadow Leader of the House has just referred would be obvious material for consideration in that debate. If the Leader of the House wishes to say anything further at this stage, he is free to do so, but he is not obliged to do so.

The House should also be aware that at any stage between now and Wednesday, further and better particulars could be provided, and there will be a statement on Wednesday—and statements can come at a variety of times. The House will want to be conscious of that and be alert to the possibilities.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In a moment. Patience will be rewarded. I call Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise the House whether you received any indication earlier today from the Prime Minister as to why he was unable or unwilling to come to the House this afternoon to make the statement that we have just heard? His refusal to do so means that the House has had no opportunity to question him about these matters, whereas last Friday he gave the press the chance to do that in a press conference. Is not that a gross discourtesy to the House? Furthermore, given the number of questions asked of the Secretary of State this afternoon that he was unable to answer—I feel sorry for him, because he has been dumped in it—can you confirm that you would make time available later today for the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement if he can finally find the time and the will to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order. The answer to his first question is no. I received no communication of the kind to which he referred. The second point that I would make to him is that it is always open to a Minister, if he or she so wishes, to come to the House at any time to make a statement on an important matter that is of interest both to the Government and to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have today, for the second week in a row, had a written statement, followed by a prime ministerial press conference, followed by an oral statement. Last week it was on the Health and Social Care Bill, today it was on sentencing and legal aid. It is pretty unusual to have two statements on the same subject on the same day, but do you share my concern that it is discourteous to the House, because it means that the media have a chance to question Ministers on policy—the Prime Minister in the last two cases—before Members of this House get the chance to ask questions? As such, it is not in keeping with the spirit of our rules.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. I have made clear my view that important announcements of policy should be made first to this House, with the opportunity of questioning Ministers. Although I understand the pressures of the 24/7 news agenda, that remains my firm view. I am therefore uneasy at sequences of events in which a written ministerial statement is followed, or even preceded, by briefing outside the House, with the opportunity to question Ministers in the House by means of an urgent question or following an oral statement coming only some time later.

The House will recall that, on 20 July last year, it asked the Procedure Committee to consider whether the rules of the House should be changed. The Committee reported in February, and the Government’s reply was published a month ago. There are thus matters awaiting resolution by the House itself. In the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that I will remain vigilant in the House’s interests, and will be ready to use my powers to permit questioning or debate if I see fit to do so, and indeed for such period as I see fit. I hope that is helpful.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House is only too well aware of the mess that the Government have made of the handling of the Health and Social Care Bill, but today’s Order Paper reveals that they are now outrageously and desperately trying to deny the House the right to decide whether it wishes to recommit the whole Bill to a Committee. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that not only would the business motion tabled by the Leader of the House specifically prevent the tabling of any amendment on the form of recommittal to the motion tabled by the Secretary of State for Health, which will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper—for example, an amendment proposing the recommittal of the whole Bill—but if tonight’s motion were objected to, there would be no debate on recommittal tomorrow?

Is it possible, Mr Speaker, for you to prevent that from happening, and protect the rights of Members, by establishing, under Standing Order 83B, a programming committee that could meet and pass a motion today which might enable us to have a proper debate tomorrow, with amendments, by invoking one of the exceptions in Standing Order 83A to the rule that programme motions should be taken forthwith?

Can you also tell us, Mr Speaker, whether, if the motion tabled by the Leader of the House is passed tonight, it will be in order for Members to argue in tomorrow’s debate that the whole Bill should be recommitted, especially as a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition calling for precisely that has been on the Order Paper since 24 May?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a series of very important matters, and I think that it is important to both him and the House for me to respond to them.

[Mr Speaker]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to deal with the point of order from the shadow Leader of the House? If after I have done so he remains dissatisfied, I will of course deal with any ensuing point of order.

Let me say first that the shadow Leader of the House is correct in supposing that if the Business of the House motion were objected to tonight, the programme (No. 2) motion would be put without debate or opportunity for amendment tomorrow. That is, as a matter of procedure, factually correct. The programme (No. 2) motion would be put without debate, as are all such motions varying or supplementing a programme order, unless they fall into one of the four exceptions listed in Standing Order No. 83A. The motion to be moved tomorrow is not covered by any of those exceptions, and so would ordinarily be put forthwith.

Secondly, there will indeed be no opportunity to move amendments. If the Business of the House motion is agreed tonight, the programme (No. 2) motion will be debated for up to an hour tomorrow, but no amendments may be moved. The same would apply if the motion were taken forthwith in accordance with Standing Order No. 83A. It would still be open to Members to table such amendments today to appear on the Order Paper tomorrow, but either way, under our procedures they could not be moved.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a very important question, namely whether it would be in order in the debate on the programme (No. 2) motion tomorrow to argue that the whole Bill, not just the clauses specified, should be recommitted, to which the explicit answer is yes. It would be possible to argue that more or less of the Bill ought to be recommitted, or, of course, to argue against recommittal altogether.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the matter as a whole—and he referred specifically to the position set out by the Leader of the Opposition last month—but the House is not being asked to agree to anything that is out of order. It is for the House to decide on the motions before it. As for the particular question of a programming committee, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Standing Order relating to such committees would apply only to proceedings on the Floor of the House, and the initial programme Order of 31 January specifically excluded the operation of a programming committee on this Bill.

Whether my response is welcome or unwelcome to different Members in the various parts of the House, I hope that Members will accept that it has been fully thought through, and has been offered on the basis of the Standing Orders of the House.

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Of course I will take a follow-up point of order from the shadow Leader of the House.

[Hilary Benn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for your comprehensive response. The Health and Social Care Bill programme motion passed on 31 January disapplied Standing Order 83B, which relates to programming committees only in relation to consideration and Third Reading, and which does not apply to Committee stage. If that is the case, could not a programming committee bring the matter within scope by the device of now suggesting a Committee of the whole House, which would therefore ensure that, even if that Committee of the whole House were not to be agreed to tomorrow, first, there would be a debate and, secondly, we could consider amendments?

[Mr Speaker]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it is my understanding that a programming committee relates to the proceedings on the Floor of the House, and I think he is in some difficulty if he is praying it in aid in support of the proposition he has just made. If I am mistaken, no doubt I will be advised, and if he does not think that I have fully seized the gravamen of his point, he is welcome to return to it because these are important matters, but that is the best initial response I can offer.

Business of the House

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On his submission to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority review, which has been published this morning in a written statement, may I welcome what it says about the need for fundamental reform? That view is forcefully shared right across the House, and we all hope that IPSA will listen.

On counter-terrorism, the shadow Home Secretary has offered cross-party talks to draft emergency legislation, but it is still not in the Library. The Government said in their review last week that using a statutory instrument would be very difficult in the event of a major incident. May we have an update?

Last night, we saw just how unpopular the plan is to sell off our woodlands and forests, with several Members on the Government Benches voting against the Government. Lib Dems will have noticed that they do not have a single Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I pity them, having to reply to all those e-mails to explain why they voted for a policy that they must, in their hearts, loathe. At least their president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), had the courage to speak out and vote with us on that. May we have a detailed statement from the Environment Secretary on the extraordinary claim she made this week, which was repeated by the Prime Minister yesterday, that the reason for the sale is an apparent conflict of interest between the Forestry Commission’s roles as a regulator and as a seller of timber? As a former Environment Secretary, may I tell the Leader of the House that, in my three years in the job, not a single person raised this matter with me? The House is entitled to know what the Secretary of State has discovered in just nine months that none of her predecessors worried about in the 90 years since the Forestry Commission was founded. This is a bad policy looking for an excuse.

I must hand it to the Government, however, and give them credit where it is due. Given that the proposal might not even save any money, it takes a special kind of genius to unite just about everyone else against it. The truth is that people do not agree with it and they do not want it; even No. 10 is now briefing that it does not think it has been very well presented. So not for the first time I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are going to have to change their mind.

Talking of which, there has been much comment this week about the Prime Minister having to come to the rescue of the Health and Social Care Bill because it, too, has been poorly presented. Will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain whether he blames himself for that, given the revelation this week that he is having trouble persuading his own brother-in-law, an NHS cardiologist, that the upheaval is a good idea? His brother-in-law is apparently worried that hospitals will be disadvantaged. If the Prime Minister cannot even reassure his own family about the proposals—and the Health Secretary certainly cannot persuade the House—is it any wonder that the public are not buying them? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have enough time in Committee properly to consider the Bill, because, to judge from the Second Reading debate, there are still far more questions than there are answers?

May we have a debate on one of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government: Sure Start? [Interruption.] It is interesting to hear Conservative Members jeering Sure Start. Before the election, the Prime Minister went up and down the country—we have certainly heard that one before—saying that he was strongly committed to it. He promised that he would back it. He even had the nerve to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for trying to frighten people about this; and his right-hand man, who is now the Education Secretary, said:

“On Sure Start, we won’t cut funding”.

It could not have been clearer. Except that we now learn that the budget is going to be cut. A survey by the Daycare Trust and 4Children shows that 250 Sure Start centres are expected to close in the next 12 months, and six of them are going to be chopped by the Tories’ own flagship borough, Hammersmith and Fulham. It is no wonder that parents are worried sick. Another week, another betrayal. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why anyone should now trust any promise made by the Prime Minister before 6 May?

Finally, I have not only been reading the Leader of the House’s submission to IPSA; I have also been reading his blog. Musing on hard times, he wrote:

“I predict that The Times list of the most popular girls’ names in the year may include a new one—Austerity.”

May I predict in return that, when it comes to boys’ names this year, Dave, George and Nick are not going to be very popular? If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for alternatives, may I suggest Complacency, Incompetency and, as for the Deputy Prime Minister, that is a really easy one: Duplicity? What is in a name? A lot!

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will take the last observation as a joke, but in any other context the use of the word “duplicity” would not be appropriate. I am sure, however, that good humour is what was intended by the shadow Leader of the House.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed it was, Mr Speaker.

European Union Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have ruled on the matter. The appointment has been made; the disqualification is a fact. Beyond that, I do not think that I can realistically or reasonably be expected to elaborate.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is quite an important issue here about the nature of an application, because if, for the sake of argument, a Member were to express the view that they might feel like resigning from the House, the Chancellor might then appoint them and they would find themselves disqualified. Surely there must be a clear procedure for making it transparent that the Member in question has applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. The question that is being asked—a question to which the House would like an answer—is: was an application made in this case specifically for the Chiltern Hundreds which then led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the appointment, and was it accepted?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, but the matter to which he has just referred—whether an application for the Chiltern Hundreds has been made—is, I am afraid, not a matter for me. The matter has been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the execution of his responsibilities, and this is one of those occasions on which it is right for me to communicate the facts of the situation, but not to wallow in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, if I can put it that way.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are just about to start an extremely important debate on the scrapping of education maintenance allowances. By my calculation, five Members will now be unable to take part in that debate because we have just had a statement that could perfectly well have been made yesterday. Have you been notified by the Minister’s office why it was necessary to have the statement on an Opposition day, and do you not agree that it is highly desirable that statements should not be made on those days unless absolutely necessary?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge is no. It is, of course, for the Government to decide whether and when to put on a statement, but my answer stands. I hope that is helpful to the House.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in urgent need of a history lesson because I do not recognise what he is describing. There is a profound difference. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have great eruptions of noise any time a Member chooses, for whatever reason, to leave the Chamber. Members will want to listen to Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

The point is this: there is a profound difference between the previous system, which was a way of raising additional finance for our universities, and the enormous reduction in funding for our universities that this increase in fees is based upon. That is why it is completely different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks do not refer to the timings or business of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am keenly attending to the debate, but I know that he—very distinguished man though he is—would not try to tell me how to do my job.

[Hilary Benn]

Lord Browne went on to state:

“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively. Our recommendations are based on written and oral evidence drawn from students, teachers, academics, employers and regulators. We have looked…at every aspect of implementing them – financial, practical and educational – to ensure that the recommendations we are making are realistic for the long term.”

The most important words in that quotation are these:

“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively.”

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am trying to listen intently to what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, but the hubbub is too great. It is calming down now and we will hear the shadow Leader.

[Hilary Benn]

As I said, the quote from Lord Browne is:

“Over the last year, we have consulted widely and intensively.”

[Interruption.] If hon. Members will be patient, they will see what this has got to do with the business motion before us tonight. Let us compare the length of time that Lord Browne took in preparing his proposals to what is before the House tonight. The Browne committee had a year to consider what it recommended; the House is to be given five hours to consider the recommendations and dispose of them. Everybody else was consulted at length, but MPs are to be given just five hours to express a view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I had been watching and listening closely, and I was conscious—I was about to comment on the fact—that a rather animated and protracted exchange seemed to be taking place between the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Whether some sort of private salon was taking place I do not know, but it must not do so. We must listen to the debate, so no taunting should take place at all. Let us listen to Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

I think I was in the process of giving way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I can be held responsible for many things, but I am afraid that the use of fire alarms at the university of Reading is not one of them. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are people chuntering from a sedentary position and urging the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) to name the people who set off the fire alarms. That would be entirely disorderly and we are not going to have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know about fire alarms, but people are certainly letting off steam. They have now done so, and we must return to the important subject of the debate on this relatively narrow motion.

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Sadly, I did not go to university, but during my time in the fire service, setting off fire alarms was considered to be a very irresponsible act.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all grateful to have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and for that recitation of his curriculum vitae, but we must now return to the debate.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The sense of outrage that is certainly felt on this side of the Chamber is of course shared by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is not in his place tonight, but he has tabled an early-day motion, which many Members have signed, that makes an eloquent plea for more time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is at the very least extremely tangential to the matter that we are supposed to be discussing, and I know that the shadow Leader of the House would not for one moment seek to dilate on the subject of the localism Bill. I know that he is going to proceed with his speech in an orderly way.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As far as the identity of that Bill is concerned, I was going to observe only that it is a mystery. No doubt all will be revealed to us in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The trouble with that intervention is that it has nothing to do with the allocation of time. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and he was very cheeky.

[Hilary Benn]

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) may have something to do with the length of time that it would take some of those Ministers to return to cast their vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that just as this House is being denied a full debate, the Minister responsible for universities, who is on the Front Bench now, has been invited to sit-ins at the London School of Economics and the School of Oriental and African Studies but has not attended? Is it my right hon. Friend’s expectation that the Minister will go and talk to the students who will be gathering in this House and outside before the debate and after it tomorrow—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That may be a point of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is somewhat wide of the terms of the motion. Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that the very least the architect of the policy could do, particularly in view of the pledge he signed before the election, is go and talk to students and explain why he has changed his mind.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Many Members have tonight mentioned the fact that constituents of theirs—students and potential students—will be coming down tomorrow to lobby their MPs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the “#” tag “name and shame” on Twitter there is a growing list of names of MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have refused to meet the students coming down tomorrow? I suspect they are refusing to meet them tomorrow because they will be too busy attending tomorrow’s debate. Does that not suggest that we ought to postpone tomorrow’s debate so that they have time to meet their constituents who are coming down tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is mounting evidence that Members are referring to matters outside the Chamber as a not very subtle ruse to try to get their point across in the House, but unfortunately they are then almost always outwith the terms of the motion. We have had a few examples of that, but I hope we will not have any more. Mr Hilary Benn.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I listened courteously, but there must be no further dilation on the subject of the motorway network. I do not think that that will aid our debate. I know that the shadow Leader of the House will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point briefly, and then develop his further arguments.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an outrage, as I indicated earlier.

I wanted to say something about the amount of time that we may actually get tomorrow to debate this subject. Although the five hours that we have been offered is a 30-minute improvement on the previous period allocated, it is not absolutely guaranteed. That is because although the Leader of the House has just told us that the Government do not intend to make any statements tomorrow, it is possible that some matter may arise. You, Mr Speaker, may receive a request for an urgent question, and if that is granted we would lose time, as we will if Government Back Benchers suddenly decide they want to raise numerous lengthy points of order. If either of those eventualities arose, the British public and Members of the House would be denied even the paltry five hours being offered by the Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Leader of the House has ignored the moment of interruption in his motion, by setting 5.30 as the time for the end of the debate tomorrow, is there any procedure by which a manuscript amendment could be tabled during the course of this debate, to extend tomorrow’s debate up until the normal moment of interruption, when any debate on a Thursday should end?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is open to any Member to table a manuscript amendment. Whether the amendment is selected is a matter for the Chair. The Chair would consider a manuscript amendment if and when it were submitted. That is the situation.

[Hilary Benn]

I am sure that the House is extremely grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, my strong impression is that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is beyond the scope of the debate. Secondly, it is longer than is desirable or acceptable. Interventions need to be shorter from now on.

[Hilary Benn]

I wish I could help the hon. Gentleman by answering his question, but I cannot. One of the people who could help him is sitting on the Government Bench, but I do not know whether he will want to intervene on me to give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks. This provides another powerful reason to have more time tomorrow to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question and many other questions that right hon. and hon. Members will want to ask.

I shall make a little more progress. One issue that the House will need more time to debate tomorrow is the potential financial consequence of the fee increase, which is presaged on an 80% reduction in funding for institutions that right hon. and hon. Members have the honour to represent in their constituencies. We still do not know for certain by how much each university is going to be affected by the introduction of the near-trebling of fees, particularly when universities are also going to be affected by other changes. For example, we know that the regional development agencies are being abolished, that the funds for regional development, some of which have been used in partnership with institutions of higher education, are being reduced and that the local economic partnerships have not been properly established in many places because of the state of chaos. Universities do not know how much they might have to find in the current financial year, never mind the impact that these tuition fee changes will have. This could affect students this year and in subsequent years as the transition from the current to the new system is managed. These are all questions that we need time to debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way this evening and I am very grateful to him for his kindness in giving way to me on this occasion. Does he agree that restricting the debate to five hours will give scant time for me to raise the concerns that I know exist in Derby in respect of Derby university? It has been calculated that, as a result of the 80% reduction to which he referred, that university will have a financial black hole of about £30 million. It will find it extremely difficult to increase tuition fees to the level that would be necessary—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, there is the issue of scope. Secondly, I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very well-behaved man, would not seek to make a speech when he is supposed to be making an intervention. [Interruption.] Order. He has registered his point, to which I know the shadow Leader of the House will want to respond.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity tomorrow precisely to put that question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Hilary Benn]

I am surprised and concerned to hear that news. It seems from what my hon. Friend says that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend more time in the television studios describing the changing positions of his party than he is prepared to spend talking to students who are going to feel the consequences of what he is proposing

I turn to a difficulty that might arise for all Members tomorrow, because all we are discussing—I say “all” in a contextual sense—is two statutory instruments. Here I seek guidance from the Leader of the House and possibly from you, Mr Speaker. The House will be aware of the rules governing the scope of debate on statutory instruments. A little while ago, I promised that I would quote from “Erskine May”, and page 681 states:

“Debate on any statutory instrument, whether subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure, is confined to the contents of the instrument, and discussion of alternative methods of achieving its object is not in order. Where the effects of an instrument are confined to a particular geographical area or areas, discussion of other areas is out of order. Nor is criticism of the provisions of the parent Act permitted.”

Mr Speaker, does that mean that Members will be restricted tomorrow in what they can discuss and what they can say? Does it mean, for example, that Opposition Members who would wish to argue the case for a graduate tax cannot raise it in the debate? Could they be ruled out of order? If right hon. and hon. Members want to refer to the implications of the proposals for other parts of the United Kingdom, will they be ruled out of order? Were that to be the case, it would show how improper is the Government’s decision to bring the statutory instrument before the House tomorrow. If that interpretation of “Erskine May” is applied—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I am not sure whether his inquiry was a genuine one or a rhetorical one, but he has referred to the fact of the motion and the narrow terms of the statutory instrument, and he raises the concern about how much scope there will be for Members fully to develop their points. It might help him and the House if I point out that the two—the motion and the SI tomorrow—have been conflated for the purposes of the consideration, and the intention of the Chair would be to adopt a broad and generous interpretation of what could legitimately be said in the debate. I hope that that is helpful to Members in all parts of the House.

[Hilary Benn]

It was a genuine inquiry, Mr Speaker, and I am extremely grateful to you for your guidance. When I read that section in “Erskine May”, I was genuinely concerned that Members might be denied the opportunity to have the full debate that we require tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government are clearly in a state of chaos when it comes to tuition fees. Yesterday, the Leader of the House tried to move a motion and it was objected to, much to the anger of the Chief Whip, as you know. Today, the Leader of the House tabled one motion in his own name and two motions in the name of the Prime Minister but, as we have just seen, did not have the courage to move the motion in his own name.

I am sure that you understand the deep sense of anger that there is in the House at the amount of time that the Government are proposing to give Members on Thursday to debate the biggest change in tuition fees and support for higher education that we have ever seen. Since the House is being treated with contempt by the Government, may we now have a statement from the Leader of the House to tell us what on earth is going on? Will he indicate how much time we will have on Thursday to debate the increase in tuition fees? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The concern of the Chair is always that matters should be handled in an orderly manner. [Interruption.] Order. That has happened, whatever the disquiet or consternation the right hon. Gentleman or others may feel. I know that he will understand that it would not be right for me, from the Chair, to say anything more on the matter. His concerns have, however, been forcefully registered.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised with you yesterday in a point of order the amount of time that the House would have to debate the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when there was a possibility of there being one statement today. We have now had two statements that have taken an hour and 10 minutes out of our time. Members will, I think, find it particularly galling that one of those statements is the result of the leak on damages settlements, on which we have just heard the Justice Secretary report to the House. In these circumstances, Mr Speaker, what protection can Members be offered so that we have the opportunity properly to debate and discuss a major constitutional Bill that will change the way in which our democracy operates?

[Mr Speaker]

I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I fully understand the seriousness of his point. The short answer, however, is that these decisions—that is to say, decisions on the timing of Government business—are ultimately for others to make. Specifically, these matters are in the hands of the usual channels and, in particular, of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman might wish that it were otherwise, and many might agree with him, but that is the position as it stands. However, I simply say to him, as I was able to say to him yesterday, that his opposite number, the Leader of the House, is present. He will have heard what has been said and it is open to the Leader of the House to respond if he so wishes.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether it was the Government’s intention, when the House considers the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill tomorrow, to provide injury time if a statement were to be made. The Leader of the House replied that it was not the Government’s intention to do so. I have written to you about this, Mr Speaker. I understand that there is a possibility of a statement tomorrow. I do not know whether you have been given any indication of that, but given that on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there were clauses that we did not have the chance to reach, even with injury time, and given that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is an important constitutional Bill, it is important that the House has proper time, if there is to be a statement. Have you had an indication from the Leader of the House that he has had a rethink and wants to come back to the House and give a different answer?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, and for giving me advance notice of it. Moreover, I have of course received the letter from the right hon. Gentleman of Friday 12 November. First, I have not received any indication, formal or informal, of a statement tomorrow. Sometimes by this point I would have done, but by no means always, so there may be a statement tomorrow or there may not be. I do not know.

Secondly, I think the right hon. Gentleman would testify and the record shows that where matters are within the gift of the Chair, the instinct of the Chair is always to facilitate full and thorough debate and analysis of all matters of policy and legislation. Sadly, in relation to a matter of this kind, the decision—no matter how worthy the cause—is not in the hands of the Chair. It is a matter for the business managers. However, my eye has alighted upon the Deputy Leader of the House. The Leader of the House is not present and therefore cannot respond. The Deputy Leader of the House is present and can, if he so wishes, offer a response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). A simple nod or shake of the head will suffice.

Points of Order

Debate between Hilary Benn and John Bercow

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following your reporting earlier of the certificate issued by the election court in the case involving the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency, as the case raises important questions it would be sensible for the House to pause before considering a by-election writ, for two reasons.

First, the matter is the subject of continuing legal proceedings by Mr Woolas, as you reported to the House at 2.30, and it seems only proper that the proceedings are allowed to conclude. Secondly—without wishing to stray at all into the details of the case, which we should not do because, as you have ruled, it is sub judice under the terms of the resolution passed by the House in 2001—if the judgment were to be overturned and the former Member were reinstated, but in the meantime we had held a by-election and another Member had been elected, we could end up with two Members of Parliament for one constituency, and that would hardly be desirable.

It seems to me that the prudent and practical course of action is to allow the legal process to be concluded before the House considers the writ.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made his points with great clarity.